I am not talking about orbits or the model of the solar system. I'm talking purely about changing the frame of reference.

If you want to plot the movement of planets, you set the frame of reference at the sun. That way, the orbits are nice and elliptical. If you plot the movement of the moon, it will look something like this, though. To get a nice ellipse, you have to set the frame of reference at the earth.

So now you have the earth at point (0,0,0) and you have the moon revolving around it in an elliptical orbit. What happens if you plot the sun?

Normally, people consider the ground not to move, and use it as a frame of reference. So if you're just standing, you're not moving. If you're driving 30 miles per hour, you're moving at that rate relative to the earth's surface, right? So, if the ground is not moving but the sun moves from one side to the other, then at this frame of reference the sun is moving around the earth.

So to be clear: I'm not making an argument against the model where the earth orbits around the sun - everything behaves the same. The only thing that changes is the frame of reference.

I can have all the faith in the world that the sun revolves around the earth however the evidence would prove me wrong.

Is there really evidence? Or is it just blind faith in what your elementary school teacher once told you? ;)

What about the whole concept of relativity and frame of reference? Should your driver's license be revoked if the police officer can provide evidence that your car was traveling 108,000 km/h above the speed limit? Because that's the speed it was traveling relative to the sun.

Sure, if you're approximating planetary orbits, this is much easier to work with than this. But neither it technically wrong. Can you disprove that the sun "rises" each morning? No, because it's just a matter for frame of reference.

It's really the credit card company's responsibility to check the address. Disposable or not, the credit card has an audit trail that leads to the owner of the account, which happens to be in the US, and probably has the author's name on it.

According to the end of the paper, it appears to be challenging the traditional assumptions that rocky exoplanets would have similar compositions to what we have here.

Numerous studies have suggested the possibility of carbon-rich exoplanets ... However, the prevalent practice is to assume Earth-centric compositions, comprising of Fe, silicates, and H₂O, in explaining super Earth observations. A carbon-rich 55 Cancri e would represent a departure from Earth-centric mineralogies in rocky exoplanets.